Return-Path: <nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id hB8MQrm07782; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 17:26:53 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 17:26:53 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <000701c3bdd7$c1306b20$130101c8@workstation1> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "George Demetrion" <george.demetrion@lvgh.org> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-FOBASICS:862] Re: FW: we do exist X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 2725 Lines: 57 Nixon and others, To pick up on your subject line a bit, The dilemma that I observe with most of the lists is that their long term efficacy requires the sustained participation of perhaps a dozen individuals over a long period of time. With such energy unleashed, enough contagion is unloosened in which others begin to participate, and then certain flows or threads that take on a life of their own, at least for a while. This seems particularly the case with the AAACE-NLA and the NIFL-AAAPLD. The NIFL-EFF is somewhat similar, though that list seems a bit less dependent on the few. Then again, there are long gaps of silence. The singular exception that I see is the NIFL-ESL. Since I only scan the archives there, I may be off on this, but, as a teacherly-oriented list, there is a broad and regular flow of messages (mostly short) by a good number of contributors. Why that is so, I don't know. Perhaps some of the participants on that list could provide some illumination on this list and some suggestions for the NIFL-FOB. Even though the various list moderators over the years have bent over backwards trying to stimulate conversation, what is missing on this list is a critical mass of discourse, which is needed to sustain ongoing conversation I'd like to offer a suggestion that the NCSALL faculty, staff, and graduate student body take collective responsibility for the direction needed, and lead this list in a steady stream of discussion on the many projects and initiatives that your agency has been engaged in over the years. Now, there may be a Harvard reticence operative in an apprehension about dominating the discussions. That's clearly understandable. Yet, under the circumstances, in which "the field" has had an abundant opportunity to use this venue and has largely elected not to do so, then the very survival of this list as a meaningful communication organ is at stake. Therefore, if the NCSALL group takes ownership for this list and actively and continuously posts a stream of messages based on their own research projects and related areas of interest, then perhaps that critical mass of discourse will be unleashed to stimulate a contagion of responses that any effective list requires. In the conservative climate of 2003, I submit the field needs the eloquence of Harvard Square more than ever. May the Crimson rise to the occasion. George Demetrion > -----Original Message----- > From: Nixon S. Griffis [mailto:ngriffis@bellsouth.net] > Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 8:34 PM > To: Alice Champagne > Subject: RE: we do exist > > > Alice, > It is now more than a month from your communication...amazing. I too would > like to correspond and share ideas with teachers.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 11 2004 - 12:17:00 EST